West Virginia Senate Bill SB 389

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Refer: 1/15/26
• Engrossed: 2/13/26
• Refer: 2/16/26

Caption

Historic Rehab Building Credit Act

Summary

SB 389, the Historic Rehab Building Credit Act, appears to revise or extend West Virginia’s historic rehabilitation tax credit program. Based on the bill caption and legislative action, the measure is aimed at encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings by adjusting the state tax credit available for qualified rehabilitation projects. The bill was approved by both chambers and is set to take effect July 1, 2026. Although the full bill text was not available in the provided materials, the title indicates that it likely amends state tax law governing eligibility, administration, or calculation of the historic rehabilitation credit. Such legislation typically affects property owners, developers, preservation groups, and tax credit applicants undertaking certified rehabilitation of historic structures. It may also influence how the state incentivizes downtown redevelopment, preservation of cultural assets, and private investment in older buildings.

Impact

SB 389 likely modifies provisions in West Virginia’s tax code related to the historic rehabilitation building credit, affecting taxpayers who renovate certified historic properties and the agencies that administer or certify those projects. The bill’s practical impact is to shape the availability and structure of a state tax incentive used to support preservation and redevelopment efforts, with downstream effects on construction, real estate investment, and historic preservation policy.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed strong bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate unanimously and the House overwhelmingly, with only one no vote on the House effective-date motion. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the measure is beneficial, likely because it supports preservation and economic development without generating major controversy in the recorded proceedings.

Contention

No committee debate or transcript excerpts were provided, and the recorded votes show minimal disagreement. The only notable point of contention visible in the history is the single dissenting vote on the House effective-date motion, but the available materials do not identify the reason or the member’s objection. Otherwise, the bill does not appear to have faced significant opposition in the legislative record provided.